Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has won a key Republican ally in his quest to improve one of the most outdated social welfare programs in the United States.
This week, Brown joined forces with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to announce their co-sponsorship of a bill updating the Supplemental Security Income program, which provides benefits to nearly 8 million Americans with disabilities.
The program pays less than $700 per month for the average recipient meeting its strict eligibility criteria, which include a requirement that recipients have less than $2,000 in their bank accounts. The Brown-Portman measure, called the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act, would boost the asset limit from $2,000 to $10,000 for individuals and peg the limit to inflation. ...
Getting the change into law, however, will be no easy task. Brown attempted unsuccessfully to hitch the measure to a big social spending bill Democrats tried to write last year, but Democrats omitted the proposal even before the bill collapsed. Its $8 billion cost is relatively small, but not exactly chump change, given current attitudes toward spending on Capitol Hill.
Having a Republican on board makes passage a bit more plausible. Brown and Portman said they would try to attach their bill to bigger pieces of legislation Congress may pass in the coming weeks. ...
The Brown-Portman bill would boost the limit to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples, eliminating the marriage penalty. Lankford said he would need to see the bill’s text, but that he had been interested in addressing the penalty for years.
Brown has pushed to boost SSI’s meager benefits and limitations on earned income as part of a broader bill but said he would take what he can get in partnership with Portman. ...
Brown needs not just one but at least ten Republican votes to pass this as a stand-alone bill because of the filibuster in the Senate. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm for this bill seems limited even among Democrats. I have no idea what bigger piece of legislation may be forthcoming that this could be attached to. I hope there is one. The enthusiasm in the House of Representatives also seems limited. Is the reason the enthusiasm is so limited a perception that since this is a poverty program that it must be primarily something affecting African-Americans? That notion is not only offensive; it's inaccurate. Most people getting SSI are white. However, the awful "welfare queen" prejudices die hard.
If it could be used effectively as a way to virtue signal about race, it would be much more popular. The fact is that this bill would be about actually helping people instead of dividing them. That does little for politicians.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a really good idea to let people on a welfare program have more savings in the bank than the average working family. Yeah, that makes awesome sense to me and should go over super well with Joe Sixpack.
ReplyDeleteOh, btw if they get $10k in the bank they will not be qualified for Medicaid, knocked out of LIHEAP probably killed on food stamps and would likely not have housing assistance anymore.
ReplyDeleteSure, more people would be eligible and that means more viable SSI claims, but the life of the SSI person is going to be turned into a major mess but once that 25% check is cashed who really cares, let the social workers take care of it.
Whether it's true or not, there's a perception that SSI's disability requirement is an afterthought, and that the program is used to funnel money to people who wouldn't be working anyway. Those perceptions make it an easy target, especially for Republicans.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when you have communities with high percentages of mostly white people who depend on SSI, you suddenly see concern from Republican politicians in places like Ohio and Kentucky. I don't know if it's overt racism, but the racial divide is certainly baked into the cake. Voters in the affected districts are conditioned to believe that they deserve SSI because they're truly disabled, but those "other" people are just looking for handouts and taking too much of the pie. Their elected representatives reflect and promote these beliefs, which is why they use the term "welfare" when referring to Democratic support for these programs, and more approachable terms like "their benefits" when referring to recipients in overwhelmingly Republican districts.
@8:39
ReplyDeleteI think there is a very weird perception that Joe Sixpack thinks the government permitting disabled folks to actually accrue assets to an extent that average worker does not would be an issue.
SSI recipients are allowed to own a house. Plenty of active workers do not. Have you literally ever heard anyone complain about that being somehow unfair to an active worker?
The 2K limit isn't a penalty, it's a way to determine who is actually needy. Are they saying this 10K is for people already receiving or also to determine initial eligibility? People on SSI don't usually save 2K much less 10K, but whatever.
ReplyDeleteAgree with some of the posters above. It’s not a penalty but a limitation.
ReplyDeleteThe government is giving you money based on a need. If you are able to save that money, then how are you paying for you monthly needs like rent or mortgage or whatever else.
Seems like a catch 22. I don’t know too many people with $2000.00 sitting around much less $10,000.00.
In the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it’s really going to make a difference. The same people who able to accrue the current resource limit will be the same able to reach the new limit. Once they go over $10,000.00, that will be unfair or cruel as well. There really is no way to solve the issue other than remove all limits it seems.
@1:06
ReplyDelete12:26 here. Not sure who said the current $2000 limit is a penalty. As to whether that limit is meant to determine who is actually needy, technically. The original limit was $1500, set on 1/1/74. Adjusting for inflation, that would be $9,306.08 today.
In any event, the raising of the asset limit is very unlikely to actually be useful for most SSI recipients because as you say, raising the limit doesn't mean SSI recipients would actually be able to significantly save up. Most struggle just to get by. If anything, it would probably reduce administrative costs by reducing processing of cases were the recipient's assets raised above the limits due to unusual singular events like an inheritance or some random windfall.
Motley Fool as of March 2022
ReplyDelete78% of Americans have a savings account
Most Americans (22%) have $1,000 to $5,000 in savings
51% of Americans have $5,000 or less in savings, while 35% have $1,000 or less
The median savings amount is $4,500, while the mean is $35,366
The median emergency fund is $2,000, while the mean is $19,342
71% of Americans keep at least some of their savings at a brick-and-mortar bank
53% of Americans with a savings account have more than one
47% respondents said they have an account specifically for emergencies
70% of respondents automate their savings deposits
Yet somehow, someone who is not working, is disabled, aged or blind has $10k in the bank while working families dont. WTF
78% of Americans have a savings account
ReplyDeleteMost Americans (22%) have $1,000 to $5,000 in savings
51% of Americans have $5,000 or less in savings, while 35% have $1,000 or less
The median savings amount is $4,500, while the mean is $35,366
Motley Fool numbers 3/22
The median emergency fund is $2,000, while the mean is $19,342
71% of Americans keep at least some of their savings at a brick-and-mortar bank
53% of Americans with a savings account have more than one
47% respondents said they have an account specifically for emergencies
70% of respondents automate their savings deposits
So, a person who is aged, disabled or blind somehow ends up on a needs based program because they are not covered under other programs based on work history and should have more resources than working families. Yeah, that makes total sense to me.
SSI is not a guaranteed income program, if you want that then push for the program.
A Republican on board. A Republican who is retiring at the end of the year.
ReplyDeleteThose criticizing raising the SSI limit are missing the point. It's not that most SSI recipients will have $10K in the bank before being disqualified. It is that there are plenty of those medically qualifying for SSI were kicked off for just slightly being over the cap. This would help those in a borderline situation. I have had many claimants legitimately get kicked off SSI for just being slightly over the cap. It seems cruel and arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteThe cap could be considered cruel and arbitrary at any amount when someone’s life is at stake but there has to be one.
DeleteMake it $10,000.00 but to the person on deaths bed with $11,000.00 in savings and hundreds of thousands in mounting medical expenses, that too could be cruel and arbitrary.
It is welfare, it has rules, go over the rules you are not eligible. If you want universal income, fight for universal income. SSA should not be doing SSI anyway.
ReplyDelete